Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: WoT
Why did some seem giddy that suspects were Muslim?
2013-04-22
Peter Sirota
[SALON] Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be foreign-born Muslims?
In which the writer does his best to ignore the difference between "want" and "expect."
My twitter feed and email box is a display of sheer unadulterated glee from conservatives celebrating the fact that the two suspects are allegedly immigrants of Muslim descent.
I believe the "allegations" that they're immigrants has been proven. "Of Muslim descent" implies Moslems are a race, which ain't the case. Chechens are a primarily Moslem tribe originally native to the Caucasus.
These conservatives are overjoyed that my hopes of the opposite did not come true. By obvious logic, then, they were hoping that the assailants ended up being anything but white non-Islamic Americans. Simple question: Why?
I "want" to be slender and svelt. I "expect" to remain bulky and graceless. What's complicated about that? The fact makes me neither happy nor sad, usually. Setting up straw men invites that they be gleefully knocked down.
This week, I made a very clear case about why I hoped (though certainly never predicted) the assailants ended up being non-Islamic white Americans.
I can "hope" that a spaceship full of aliens lands and carries me off to the Planet of Pining Damsels. Based on experience to date, that ain't gonna happen.
Simply put, I held those hopes because history shows that when terrorism suspects are non-white, foreign or Islamic -- and in particular, the latter -- we have witnessed an overreaction involving everything from preemptive wars to curtailed civil liberties to a serious increase in hate crimes against groups that are collectively blamed, to polls showing a rise in bigotry to a spate of violent attacks on targeted religions to an increase in workplace discrimination against targeted minority groups.
Quite a list of allegations. The thrust seems to be that, because the solution to a problem might be difficult or inconvenient the existence of the problem should be denied.
By contrast, when terrorism suspects are non-Islamic white American males (as many are),
Not that many, really. Other than Timothy McVeigh, of negligible damage, except to the actual victims.
our governmental and cultural response tends to be more measured and (to say the least) less willing to demonize whole groups of innocent people.
Which raises a question: What if there are whole groups of people who should be demonized? Probably the world can stagger along tolerating the corrosive stupidity of the Moslem Brüderbund. Can the world stagger a little further tolerating the murderous eruptions of the Salafists? Can the world roll happily along carrying with it the doctrine of takfir wal hijra?
Because of this, and because of the fact that the suspects had to be of some race/religion/ethnicity, I hoped for the former not the latter.
But nobody expected them to be Lutherans from Minnesota, or Methodists from Lubbock. My chief surprise in this whole thing has been that there hasn't been a single Pakistani involved. At least not that we've discovered yet.
I didn't -- and still don't -- want to see the kind of destructive and bigoted overreaction we've too often seen. It's pretty simple.
Reaction to domestic Moslems was pretty understated following 9-11. There weren't riots in the streets. Nobody was hung from a lamppost. A few dumbasses beat somebody up, occasionally to discover the victim wasn't even a Moslem. The number of actual incidents I've seen in the past twelve years (and I've been watching) is outnumbered by the number of false reports submitted by Moslems wanting to game the system.
Of course, now that the suspects are alleged to be Muslim,
I guess we'll have to see their equivalent to baptismal certificates before this guy will cease referring to facts as "alleged?"
we will see if America follows the same historical path that we have before -- one involving mass surveillance of whole religious communities, hate crimes, new Patriot Acts and calls for other punitive measures. Rush Limbaugh insists that we won't see such a response -- and I sincerely hope he is right.
I don't expect to see such things either. In fact I expect the Obama administration to do precisely squat, because other than squat will likely lose votes.
But events suggest history may already be repeat itself.
Come up with better solutions, if you please. Try to be original. The late, unlamented, Molly Ivins demanded a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan rather than tossing the Taliban. This was prior to the country being reduced to rubble like Berlin, Dresden, Hambug, and other major German cities had been. And before they had unconditionally surrendered like the Reich had. That's an example of both unoriginal and stoopid.
Indeed, in the last few days, we've seen reports of hate crimes against Muslims (before the suspects were identified, by the way);
We have? Where? Somebody post them, please, if only the links. As far as I can see the country (at least the part that pays attention) has been more interested in the manhunt than searching out people who look Chechen or Moslem and beating them up. I just looked out my window and there's no one dangling from a lamp post.
Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) call for mass surveillance of all Muslims;
It's my opinion that we should keep a close eye on Salafists. Of course, I don't think Moslems should be allowed into the country until all fatwas calling for the death of apostates are rescinded, so I'm obviously islamophobic.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) demand that the suspect -- an American citizen -- be deemed an enemy combatant and denied due process;
Lindsey's not the brightest bulb in the drawer. The guy's an American--Joker's the one who's a citizen, right?--and he committed a crime within the United States. He's due the protection of the Constitution as far as I'm concerned. Even if he's merely a legal resident, in fact.
the Obama administration deny Miranda rights to the suspect;
The reading of Miranda rights isn't a magickall incantation. If he's not given his Miranda rights that's a different story.
and New York State Sen. Greg Ball (R) call for the use of torture.
The dumbass shot himself in the neck trying to do away with himself. State Sen. Ball should be the one designated to operate the iron maiden on him. There aren't any laws against being stupid because eventually the condition cures itself--whether for State Senators or for societies.
Notably, these kinds of affronts to civil liberties and the constitution are almost never seen when terrorism suspects are white non-Islamic Americans.
Are there enough of them for a valid statistical sampling? Or is this just the obligatory cry of "racism?"
All of this underscores my argument about why I had hoped the suspects ended up being white non-Islamic Americans.
I "hope" that I'm irresistible to large-bosomed, leggy blondes with lots of money. Based on the available evidence I'm wrong.
It also begs the aforementioned question: knowing the differences in how we react to Muslim terrorism and non-Islamic white American terrorism, why are so many conservatives gleefully cheering the possibility that the suspects are the former?
Perhaps they're "cheering" because their off-hand statistical analysis has proven correct. Again.
Could it be that some Americans actually want to see the kind of bigoted, violent, civil-liberties-trampling reaction we tend to see when terrorism suspects end up being Muslim?
The U.S. has become a remarkably un-bigoted country in the past forty years, at least in the sense the author's trying to push. That lack of old-fashioned bigotry has left a vacuum that's been filled by the new-fashioned bigotry of people like the writer. He's got a view of the world built up from theory and any inconvenient facts become evidence of low motives on the part of the people uncovering them. We're looking here at a mind that's closed and locked tight.
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
Keith Olbermann Ridicules FBI, Brands U.S. Troops "misguided, overzealous" and mentally ill
2007-05-13
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC news anchor and co-host of the news channels recent coverage of the Democrat and Republican presidential debates, said in a speech Thursday "the people who are defending us" against the threat of terrorist attack are misguided or overzealous or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder".

Olbermann drew nervous laughter for his remarks mocking law enforcement officials. Olbermann was speaking at the annual AAN Awards luncheon hosted by the Association of Alternative Weeklies in Manhattan.
These are the dimwit trustafarian dilettantes and con-artists who publish that local "arts and culture" rag you find in the free racks outside your favorite supermarket. It should be known as the Association of Emergency Toilet Paper Distributors.
Olbermann received an award named for the late Molly Ivins.
(emphasis added)
This is the second time in three days that Olbermann has mocked efforts of law enforcement officials who arrested six men for allegedly plotting to carry out a terrorist attack at a military base in New Jersey. On the Wednesday telecast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, he derided the efforts of law enforcement official in rounding up suspects dubbed the "Fort Dix Six", saying "the FBI arrested six 'morons'".
So, Keith, stupid terrorists should get a pass?
Only until they blow up something or kill someone. Then we need to 'understand their anger'.
In his speech to the fishwrap newspaper trade group, Olbermann said,

"I sit there with no doubt that there's a threat. I have no doubt that there are terrorists. I have no doubt that many of the motivations of the people who are defending us against these things are absolutely sincere and many of them are at worst misguided or overzealous or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder."

NOTE: We could have just as easily commented on Keith comparing himself to a firefighter rushing in to rescue people from a burning building, whining about being "attacked in every almost every imaginable way personally" or that he is "still waiting for somebody to come back with a rebuttal to the facts that I have tried to elucidate" but calling our troops "misguided, overzealous" and mentally ill was so obviously the low point in an otherwise shameful speech we had to lede (sic) with Keith disparaging the troops.
Overbight is arguably the most loathesome of the current crop of media beasts, though the competition is fierce. What is it with these sports geeks turned news-goebbelists, eg the Gold Standard of clueless narcissistic arrogance, Bryant Gumbel?
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
Columnist Molly Ivins Dies....
2007-02-01
Best-selling author and columnist Molly Ivins, the sharp-witted liberal who skewered the political establishment and referred to President Bush as "Shrub," died Wednesday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62.

David Pasztor, managing editor of the Texas Observer, confirmed her death.

The writer, who made a living poking fun at Texas politicians, whether they were in her home base of Austin or the White House, revealed in early 2006 that she was being treated for breast cancer for the third time.
Ms. Ivins may have been on the other side of the fence politically, but times like this, it doesn't matter - I know all our sympathies and condolences go to her family.
Link


Fifth Column
Moonbats at Sea
2006-06-14
Katherine Jean Lopez at National Review posts this gem from her inbox:
Dear EmailNation Subscriber,

We know that cruises aren't for everyone but Nation publisher emeritus Victor Navasky and The Nation want to invite you on The Nation's ninth annual seminar cruise. Setting sail from Fort Lauderdale on December 16, the Holland America's MS Zuiderdam will cruise through the Caribbean on a seven-day tour, returning to Florida on December 23.
Yes, seven days of sun, seasickness, seething, and solidarity with the working class on a cruise ship that's priced out of reach of the proletariat!
The dates have been selected to allow families and educators to make the trip. You'll be joining a distinguished group of speakers who will participate in a series of lectures, seminars, conversations and binge drinking cocktail parties over the course of the voyage. Confirmed speakers include Joe Wilson,
(top secret CIA agent--shhhhh! don't tell anyone he's aboard!)
Scott Ritter,
(youth counselor)
Steve Earle,
(washed-up drug-addled folk singer)
Jane Smiley,
(whodat? Did she invent the Wal-Mart smiley face icon or something?)
Jonathan Kozol,
(rich guy who writes about poor people)
Molly Ivins,
(former pro wrestler)
the Rev. Lennox Yearwood,
(whoever the hell he is, he has the coolest name of the bunch)
and Jim Hightower
(alleged radio personality)
as well as Nation writers David Corn and Katha Pollitt and RadioNation host Laura Flanders. They'll join Navasky and Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel in what has always been both an enlightening exchange of ideas and a no-hassle, nonstop Bush-hating frenzy relaxing vacation.

Best Regards,
Peter Rothberg,
The Nation
Imagine: a whole boatload of moonbats. Any chance we can get them to do an audience-participation reenactment of The Poseidon Adventure -- or at least Gilligan's Island?
Link


Home Front: Politix
Impeach Bush? Or Straitjackets for Lefties?
2006-01-10
Barbara Streisand, columnist Molly Ivins and Sen. Ted Kennedy are among those hinting - or saying outright - that President George Bush ought to be impeached. But the better idea is to round up these hysterical, "the sky is falling" lefties, put them in straitjackets (so that they don't hurt themselves or anyone else) and then lock them up in an insane asylum.

This suggestion of mine has at least one outstanding merit as opposed to theirs: I don't actually mean it. But my suggestion is no more outrageous or goofy, no more irresponsible or paranoid, and no more an assault on democratic principles than what they are mouthing (and I say as much even though I disagree with the administration's domestic spying).

It is this revelation - that the administration has eavesdropped without court review on conversations between overseas terrorists and legal U.S. residents - that has especially stirred up the anti-Bush zanies, many of whom were already hysterical and shrill to the point of comparing the president to Hitler (as if he were similarly killing millions in gas chambers).

But let's consider the following.

A nearly imperceptible percentage of Americans are likely to ever have their privacy violated by the spying and the policy, which mainly targets those who have buddies in al-Qaida, has quite possibly been one of the administration policies that has saved us from a repeat of Sept. 11.

As the president said in a press conference, he himself has continuously reviewed the execution of the policy. Congressional leaders were kept abreast of it. And while a 1970s law prohibits the domestic wiretapping, the president's defenders point out that every president since its passage has asserted that the Constitution grants him authority to ignore it and courts have, on more than one occasion, agreed. Many respected constitutional experts have argued that the 1970s law was itself an infringement on a president's right as commander in chief to safeguard America in a time of war.

There remains a strong case that, whatever the difficulties, the administration should have sought congressional legalization of the practice and found a way for judicial review (even if it had to come after the federal agents had done their eavesdropping). The Constitution says explicitly that the president should uphold the law (which seems explicit and clear, whatever the courts say), and I can find nothing that says the obligation evaporates in a time of war. Court review is necessary to make sure that the executive does not extend its domestic spying beyond the narrow scope of what we now know is taking place. The possibilities for abuse are obvious and could add up to serious civil rights infringements in the absence of this check.

But this is not the same as saying that the legal arguments against the president are impenetrable, that the White House acted in bad faith - without regard for the legislative branch - or that national security dividends could not have resulted.

What we have here is a debate, but not a revelation of malfeasance. Anyone who suggests that the solution to this argument is impeachment, rather than democratic give and take, walks dangerously close to melodramatic absolutism. Yet, we have a number of congressional Democrats (in addition to some liberal columnists and Hollywood's dubious analysts) talking about impeachment as if they finally had their opportunity to overturn the judgment of the electorate. While I don't seriously advocate straitjackets for them, nothing would delight me more than to see them feel democracy's sting in failed reelection efforts.

Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion'
2005-12-05
The dyspeptic Polly Toynbee, Britain's answer to Molly Ivins, takes on Narnia. She loses, of course, as does anyone who goes up against Aslan.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Penn Lt Gov apologizes ... sorta
2005-07-26
PITTSBURGH (AP) - Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll apologized Monday to the family of a Marine killed in Iraq for showing up uninvited for his funeral last week and giving out a business card. Knoll went to the funeral of Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich and family members said she told his aunt that ``our government'' was opposed to the war.

In a letter to Goodrich's widow, Amy, Knoll said she left a card in case the family wanted to contact her ``and as a sign of my willingness to help the family through this difficult time in any way I can. To do anything that was deemed insensitive was completely counter to my intent.''
What a weasel. Molly Ivins understands what is required in a proper apology.
Goodrich, 32, of Westwood, died July 10 in Iraq. His family said that they felt they were owed an apology by Knoll and didn't understand why she attended the funeral in Carnegie.

``Sergeant Goodrich's service was beyond the call of duty,'' Knoll's letter said. ``If my regard for his family's grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology.''
How about something along the lines of, "I am so very sorry I offended you. Please accept my most humble, contrite apology."
Rhonda Goodrich, Joseph Goodrich's sister-in-law, said the apology was accepted although the family had also wanted Knoll to apologize to the Marine Corps.

Knoll said in her letter that she arrived too late to offer her personal condolences. That rankled Rhonda Goodrich, who said she believed Knoll came to get publicity. ``She didn't have time to be with Amy or Joe's parents, but she made time for the TV cameras,'' she said. ``That's where I'm still a little bitter.''

Knoll said she has attended ``dozens of funerals to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.''
And putting the state government on record as being against the war?
Link


Iraq-Jordan
Molly Ivins : I was wrong
2005-07-13
This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.

The only problem is figuring out by how large a factor I was wrong. I had been keeping an eye on civilian deaths in Iraq for a couple of months, waiting for the most conservative estimates to creep over 20,000, which I had fixed in my mind as the number of Iraqi civilians Saddam had killed.

The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in this war is 100,000, according to a Johns Hopkins University study published in the British medical journal The Lancet last October, but I was sticking to the low-end, most conservative estimates because I didn't want to be accused of exaggeration.

Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count Saddam's killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and seized documents from Iraqi security organizations show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988.

In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces did not intervene, and Saddam brutally suppressed both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that had been home to a local population for more than 5,000 years.

Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered. That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape, has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human rights groups over the years.

There are wildly varying estimates of the number of civilians, especially babies and young children, who died as a result of the sanctions that followed the Gulf War. While it is true that the ill-advised sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, I do not see that that lessens Hussein's moral culpability, whatever blame attaches to the sanctions themselves -- particularly since Saddam promptly corrupted the Oil for Food Program put in place to mitigate the effects of the sanctions, and used the proceeds to build more palaces, etc.

There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.

I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.


Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?
Link


Fifth Column
Babs: "Dewd! Where's my free press?"
2004-09-29
... So it's no wonder that the press has taken a backseat to reporting the misdeeds of this administration.
... since they couldn't keep up with bloggers.
It's not surprising that the press failed to ask the hard questions leading up to the war in Iraq, when a more informed public still had time to speak up.
... and would have said the same thing.
Never mind that CBS's story included substantive and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical that grounded him from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge.
Forgeries, Babs! 4-ger-ies! False! Lying! Plants! If the keystone of your argument is made up of 4-ger-ies then the remainder of your argument is suspect.
Yes...the documents CBS presented could not be confirmed for their authenticity, but these details of Bush's military record have been out for public consumption for years.
"Could not be confirmed for their authenticity" = 4-ger-ies. False. Lying. Made up.
Why is the media not discussing the facts behind the story instead of just focusing on CBS?
Because it was CBS that turned into a second, unique story, using forged documents that it should have been able — assuming even minimal competence — to prove or disprove. Instead, they went with what they wanted to be true, whether it was true or not. SeeBS as a result has lost the reputation it built over many years and was only destroying by incremental degrees up to now. SeeBS's self-destruction became the story, and it's more important than Bush's actions in a national guard unit 30 years ago.
For example, Killian's secretary said those memos accurately reflected the Colonel's feelings.
And his wife and son, who presumably knew him better unless he was banging the secretary, said they didn't.
Ben Barnes, former lieutenant governor of Texas, admitted that he pulled strings to get Bush into the National Air Guard.
And his own daughter called him a liar.
And Robert Mintz, retired National Guardsman who served in Bush's unit in 1972, doesn't remember seeing him there.
Didja ask Bush if he recalls seeing Robert Mintz? Maybe they were ships passing in the night. Maybe they weren't people who needed people...
And in contrast to Senator John Kerry, who said "send me" when given the option to go to Vietnam, according to the LA Times, when asked the same question, Bush checked the box stating "do not volunteer for overseas."
Probably because he was in the National Guard, not in the regulars. Babs is working on the mistaken assumption that the regulars resented the reserves and National Guard. That's not the case, and it wasn't even the case way back then...
The media's attention is diverted from the real story because we now live in a time where the fear of revenge by this administration sends a chill through the corporations that control our media and overwhelms the press' responsibility to investigate, educate and hold our leaders accountable.
Oh, yasss! Look at the Dire Revenge™ the administration's taken on... ummm... Helen Thomas. And for what? Just because she's become senile? And look at Molly Ivins! Look at what they've done to her!... Oh. Sorry. She did that.
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
I Say, Yee-Haw, Chaps!
2004-08-07
Those of you who get the Trio channel on digital cable or satellite (this does not include me) might like to check out TEXAS: America Supersized, written and narrated and hosted by Christopher Hitchens, premiering tonight at 9pm Eastern. The Houston Chronicle is understandably nervous:
Christopher Hitchens can be nasty when he wants to be, which is often. The renowned British journalist has taken infamous swipes of his poisonous pen at Henry Kissinger, Princess Diana and, for goodness' sake, Mother Teresa...[I]t pays to be wary when Hitchens comes calling, as he does Sunday with the documentary Texas: America Supersized. But it's safe to come out now...Hitchens leaves the Lone Star State intact.

This Slate article says, Hitchens...asks: "With a Texan in the White House, are Texan values taking over America?"...[Hitchens is] a dapper chap who appears to enjoy the limelight as he drives around the state, buying elephant-leather cowboy boots or riding in a border patrol vessel along the Mexican border, his lank locks flowing behind him in the wind.

The New York Daily News has a photo of Hitchens in cowboy get-up. Spot of all right, ain't it? Molly Ivins, Kinky Friedman, and Larry McMurtry are interviewed.

The documentary airs several times over the month, and is part of a month-long Texas focus by Trio, including programs such as Teenage Texas Virgins, Turning Muslim in Texas, and Good Clean Porn: Debbie Does Dallas. (No, really. I think it's a kind of "making of" thing.) See the Trio site for details and times.

Ordinarily I would not shill for a TV channel, especially one I can't watch, but I thought y'all would get a kick out of Hitchens as cowboy.
Link


This’ll Make You Toss Your Lunch
2004-02-25
Right Wing News emailed more than a 160 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of who they considered to be the "Dinner Guests From Hell". Representatives from the following 54 blogs responded...
Abode Of Amritas, Absinthe & Cookies, Annika’s Journal And Poetry, Betsy’s Page, Capitalist Lion, Cavalier’s Guardian Watchblog, Cobb, Cold Fury, Conservative Commentary, The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor & Stupid, Cornfield Commentary, Cox & Forkum, Curmudgeonly & Skeptical, Davids Medienkritik, Dissecting Leftism, Dodgeblogium, Ed Driscoll, Evil Pundit Of Doom!, Drumwaster’s Rants, Dumb Celebs, For The Sake Of Argument, Four Right Wing Wackos, Ghost of a Flea, The Greatest Jeneration, Gut Rumbles, Joyful Christian, Hoystory, Hud’s Blog-O-Rama, IMAO, Insults Unpunished, Jessica’s Well, Jihad Watch, JunkYardBlog, North Georgia Dogma, Porphyrogenitus, QandO, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Wing News, Sasha Castel, Serenity’s Journal, Sgt. Hook, A Small Victory, The SmarterCop, The Spoons Experience, Stark Truth, Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, Tacitus, Trying To Grok, Up Yours & Other Helpful Tips, The Ville, Whacking Day, The Yale Diva, Zogby Blog

All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Rank was determined simply by the number of votes received.

The bloggers were also told that their selections had to be currently living people from anywhere in the world that they’d really dislike having to sit down with for a long 1 on 1 conversation over dinner. Furthermore, no dictators, terrorists, serial killers, or mass murderers could be selected.

Here are the selections that were made with the number of votes received following each choice in parentheses...

Honorable Mentions: Helen Thomas (5), Dan Rather (5), Rosie O’Donnell (5), Madonna (5), Dennis Kucinich (5), Bill O’Reilly (6), Molly Ivins (6), Jane Fonda (6), Ann Coulter (6), Bill Clinton (6)

20) Al Sharpton (7)
20) Paul Krugman (7)
20) Alec Baldwin (7)
17) Michael Jackson (8)
17) Janeane Garofalo (8)
17) Robert Fisk (8)
14) Sean Penn (9)
14) Ralph Nader (9)
14) Terry McAuliffe (9)
11) Ted Rall (10)
11) John Kerry (10)
11) Jimmy Carter (10)
9) Jesse Jackson (11)
9) Howard Dean (11)
8) Ted Kennedy (15)
7) Noam Chomsky (16)
6) Al Gore (17)
5) Jacques Chirac (18)
3) Barbra Streisand (19)
3) Al Franken (19)
2) Hillary Clinton (25)
1) Michael Moore (41)

Not news, but I thought it was a fun read. I think we could add Moby to that list.
Link


Great White North
Author of ’Shrub’ memo resigns
2003-08-05
via Daily Pundit
Ted Bowen, the NDP caucus researcher who referred to U.S. president George Bush using the dismissive term "shrub" in an internal government memo, has resigned.
Excellent!
According to a source who didn’t want to be identified, Bowen was asked to resign last Thursday, one day after the memo became public knowledge and was initially suspended without pay.
And if it hadn’t become public?
Over the weekend, Bowen offered that resignation and the government accepted it effective immediately.
Exit, stage left!
Bowen, 60, first joined the caucus office as a researcher 24 years ago under the Allan Blakeney government. Bowen’s lengthy career with the party stumbled last week when a memo he wrote to MLAs and party candidates was inadvertently faxed to the media.
D’oh!
The letter urged members to use "whatever creative flimflam you can come up with" to circulate a petition from the government urging Bush to re-open the American border to Canadian beef.
at least it was open about it
The border was closed in May after a lone case of mad cow disease was found in an Alberta animal. While the memo itself seemed innocuous enough, it contained the subject line: "Re: Petition to President Shrub."
that’ll get you goodwill...ass
A post-script on the letter explained that "shrub" was a dismissive nickname for Bush used by American writer shrew, bitter bitch and leftwingnut columnist Molly Ivins. Bowen’s gaffe made national news and even the Drudge Report, an American Web site that covers political news. It also embarrassed the NDP government at a time when Premier Lorne Calvert was in Toronto at the Rolling Stones concert to promote the safety of Canadian beef. Calvert later told the Canadian Press the memo was "just plain dumb" and in no way reflected the government’s position.
"bring me dumbass’s resignation ..now"
The memo was the latest in a series of high-profile Canadian slights against Americans. Last year, Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s former press secretary resigned after she was heard calling Bush a moron. Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish also embarrassed Ottawa when she was overheard saying "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards."
we remember that one too
In the latest incident, the province immediately distanced itself from both the memo and Bowen with Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Eldon Lautermilch saying the government would conduct an internal review and consider disciplinary action. Jim Fodey, chief of staff for the NDP caucus office, declined to comment on any disciplinary action taken, saying that it was a confidential matter. "We consider this an internal personal matter. All the staff in the caucus office other than myself are in a left wing cabal union and we have a collective agreement so I’m not allowed to discuss this file," he said.
"I can say no more!"
Employees in the caucus office are represented by the Office and Professional Employees International Union. No one from the union office could be reached for comment. Bowen also declined comment on the story.
D’oh! again
Perhaps Ted should consider a rewarding career in the food service industry if he can't get a job working for Molly...
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More